1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1YDctU-0004Rm-3j
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:47:12 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.39])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YDctT-0003sf-8W
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:47:12 +0000
Received: from resomta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.102])
by resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id iHms1p0062D5gil01Hn6Kd; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:47:06 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:1e4e:1f4d:332c:3bf6])
by resomta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id iHn41p00j2JF60R01Hn5Zh; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:47:05 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:47:04 -0500
Message-ID: <30930479.sqHpaOe3cY@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.16.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <656E7756-5F0B-4594-B9F1-8CC68C7A5EE5@bitsofproof.com>
References: <20150120154641.GA32556@muck> <2236907.ZtrNgikFVR@crushinator>
<656E7756-5F0B-4594-B9F1-8CC68C7A5EE5@bitsofproof.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [69.252.207.39 listed in list.dnswl.org]
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YDctT-0003sf-8W
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet
software; custodial relationships
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:47:12 -0000
On Tuesday, 20 January 2015, at 6:44 pm, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> Knowing the private key and owning the linked coins is not necessaril=
y the same in front of a court.
>=20
> At least in german law there is a difference between =E2=80=98Eigentu=
m' means ownership and =E2=80=98Besitz=E2=80=99 means ability to deal w=
ith it.
> Being able to deal with an asset does not make you the owner.
So what we're telling the newbies in /r/bitcoin is plain wrong. Bitcoin=
s *do* have an owner independent from the parties who have access to th=
e private keys that control their disposition. That's pretty difficult =
to reconcile from a technological perspective.
|
